alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE>

XHIBIT 21

<CAPTION>


                       SUBSIDIARIES OF HYDE ATHLETIC INDUSTRIES, INC.


                                                              Jurisdiction of                Percentage
               Name                                            Incorporation                    Ownership


<S>                                                               <C>                                <C> 
Hyde International Services, Ltd.                                 Hong Kong                           100%

Hyde Transition Corp.*                                            Massachusetts                       100%

Spot-Bilt, Inc.**                                                 Maine                               100%

Saucony Canada, Inc.***                                           Ontario                              85%

Saucony, Inc.***                                                  Massachusetts                       100%

Saucony Sports, B.V.***                                           Netherlands                          76%

Saucony SP Pty. Ltd.***                                           Australia                            50%

Saucony Deutschland Vertriebs GmbH ***                            Germany                             100%

Quintana Roo, Inc.****                                            Delaware                            100%



----------------------
<FN>

*       Formerly known as Brookfield Athletic Co., Inc.
**      Does business as "Spot-Bilt."
***     Does business as "Saucony."
****    Does business as "Quintana Roo."
</FN>
</TABLE>
Bank
      of America




Banc of America


Leasing Global Vendor Finance


WAIVER
      Dated as of January 8, 2007




Navistar
      Financial Corporation


425
      North
      Martingale Road, Suite 1800


Schaumburg,
      Illinois 60173




International
      Truck Leasing Corp.


425
      North
      Martingale Road, Suite 1800


Schaumburg,
      Illinois 60173




Re:
      Waiver Dear Sirs:




Banc
      of
      America Leasing & Capital LLC ("BALCAP")
      and International
      Truck Leasing Corp ("ITLC")
areparties to that certain Master Purchase Agreementdated as of
      June
      30, 2004 (together with all amendments and modifications thereto, the
      "Agreement").
      Unless defined
      elsewhere herein, capitalized terms used in this Waiver have the meanings
      assigned to such terms in the Agreement.




ITLC
      has
      requested that BALCAP extend its waiver (dated as of February 28, 2006) of
      certain provisions of the Agreement as more specifically set forth herein.
      BALCAP does hereby waive such provisions as hereinprovided, subject however, to
      the limitations set forth below:




A.
            BALCAP
                waives compliance with the provisions of Exhibit D to Master Purchase
                Agreement, Section (b), Financial Statement for the period through
                and
                including theearlier of ( i ) October 31, 2007 and (ii) the date on which
                Navistar Financial Corporation shall have timely filed a report on
                Form
                10-K or 10-Q with the Securities and Exchange
                Commission.




B.
            BALCAP
                waives the condition precedent specified in clause I(b)(vi ) as it
                relates
                directly to the failure of  NFC or any of its affiliates to
                deliver or file any financial statement:
                SEC report or
                related information during the period of thewaiver described above in Section A, ("Financial Statement
                Default"),
                so long as
                such other creditor has not declared an event of default with respect
                to
                Navistar Financial Corporation or accelerated the debt of Navistar
                Financial Corporation due to a Financial Statement
                Default.




BALCAP's
      waiver as provided herein shall be strictly limited to the matters set forth
      above, and shall not constitute a waiver, surrender, or modification of any
      other rights, remedies, privileges or benefits under the Agreement or any
      related documents. This letter and the waiver set forth herein shall not
      constitute a course of dealing, and each of the provisions of the Agreement
      and
      any related document, shall remain in full force and effect.




Very
      truly your,


Banc
      of
      America Leasing & Capital LLC








By:_______________________________


Its:_______________________________-






E-326
# Part 1	Fiscal Year 2017 Reporting

**SUPPLEMENT	Section III**

**U.S. Standard General Ledger Account Transaction Categories**

**TRANSACTION**

**CODETRANSACTION DESCRIPTION**

# A. Funding

100 - 399	Budgetary Resources Other Than Collections 400 - 699	Authority Transfers

700 - 799	Reimbursables and Other Income

# B. Disbursements and Payables

E. **Accruals/Nonbudgetary Transfers Other Than Disbursements and Collections**

100 - 399	Accrual, Depreciation, Amortization, and Depletion

400 - 499	Accumulated and Allocated Costs Not in Categories Above 500 - 799	Transfers Without Budgetary Impact

# F. Yearend

100 - 299	Preclosing Entries

300 - 499	Closing Entries

# G. Memorandum Entries

100 - 299	All Memorandum Entries (Excluding Closing Memorandum Entries)

# H. Other Specialized Transaction Entries

100 - 799	Other

# Bulletin No. 2017-06	III AC - 1	June 2017
EXHIBIT 23 - CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

We have issued our report dated October 31, 1996, accompanying the consolidated
financial statements included in the Annual Report of Innovex, Inc. on Form 10-K
for the year ended September 30, 1996. We hereby consent to the incorporation by
reference of said report in the Registration Statements of Innovex, Inc. on Form
S-8 (File No. 33-14776, effective June 3, 1987, File No. 33-27530, effective
March 17, 1989, File No. 33-59035, effective May 2, 1995, File No. 333-10045,
effective August 12, 1996 and File No. 333-10047, effective August 12, 1996.)



                                                          \s\ GRANT THORNTON LLP

Minneapolis, Minnesota
December 10, 1996
Part 1

SUPPLEMENT

USSGL 

Acct. USSGL Account Title

Anti-cipatedBudg/ 

Prop

Norm 

Bal

Begin/ 

End

Debit/ 

Credit

Auth 

Type 

Code

Apport 

Cat

Apport 

Cat B

Avail 

Time

BEA 

Cat

Borrow 

Source

Budgetary 

Impact 

Indicator Cohort Year

Cust/ 

Noncust

Exch/ 

Nonexch

Fed/ Nonfed

Trading 

Prtnr

Trading 

Partner 

Main

PY

Adj DEFC

Pgm 

Rpt 

Cat Reimb Flag

Year 

of BA

Reduction 

Type BOC Fund Type

Reporting 

Type Code

Financing 

Account 

Code

TAS 

Status

Trans. 

Code

259100 Repayable Advance Debt N P C B/E D/C F ### /#### CF/DF/EC/EG/EM/EP/ER/ES/ET/GA/TR/UG/UT E/U D/G/N U/E X/K/N

412600 Amounts Appropriated From Specific Invested TAFS - Receivable N B D B/E D/C B/P/R D/M F ### #### B/P/X 1 or 3 

character 

OMB 

approved 

value

D SEQ/XXX EG/ES/ET E/F/U N U/E X/K/N

413900 Contract Authority Carried Forward N B D B/E D/C D/M 1 or 3 

character 

OMB 

approved 

value

D EG/EP/ER/ES/ET E/F/U N U X/K/N

417600 Allocation Transfers of Prior-Year Balances N B D E D/C D/P/S D/M F ### #### B/P/X 1 or 3 

character 

OMB 

approved 

value

D/R EC/EG/EM/EP/ER/ES/ET/TR E/F/U N U/E X/K/N

419000 Transfers - Prior-Year Balances N B D E D/C D/P/S D/M F ### #### B/P/X 1 or 3 

character 

OMB 

approved 

value

D/R EC/EG/EM/EP/ER/ES/ET/TR E/F/U D/G/N U/E X/K/N

419200 Balance Transfers - Unexpired to Expired N B D E D/C P/S D/M F ### #### B/P/X 1 or 3 

character 

OMB 

approved 

value

D/R EC/EG/EM/EP/ER/ES/ET/TR E/F/U N U/E X/K/N

432100 Adjustments for Changes in Prior-Year Allocations of Budgetary 

Resources - General Fund Account

N B D E D/C D P 1 or 3 

character 

OMB 

approved 

value

D EG E/F/U N U/E X/K/N

433000 Offset to adjustment for Change in allocation of Trust Fund limitation - 

General Fund Account

N B C B/E D/C D/M P/X 1 or 3 

character 

OMB 

approved 

value

D EG E/F/U N U/E X/K/N

470000 Commitments - Programs Subject to Apportionment N B C E D/C A/S D/M 1001/1992-

2025

1 or 3 

character 

OMB 

approved 

value

D/R EC/EG/EM/EP/ER/ES/ET/TR E/F/U D/G/N U X/K/N

593900 Contra Revenue for Lessor Lease Revenue N P D E D/C A/S T/X F/N ### #### CF/DF/EC/EG/EM/EP/ER/ES/ET/GA/TR/UG/US/UT E/F/U D/G/N U/E/C X/K/N

Fiscal Year 2024 Reporting

Section IV

U.S. Standard General Ledger - Attribute Table

U S S G L A C C O U N T USSGL ATTRIBUTES B U L K F I L E A T T R I B U T E S T A S A T T R I B U T E S

Bulletin No. 2024-01 IV AT - 1 IRC Handout Draft
# Data

&L&"Arial"&10&BBulletin No. 2022-10	&"Arial,Bold"VII VSR - &P	&R&"Arial"&10&BMarch 2022
EX-10.A






 Exhibit 10.A



March 26, 2008



Mr. John F. Jastrem


President and Chief Executive Officer


Exhibitgroup/Giltspur


4051 St. Highway 121 N., Ste 100


Grapevine, Texas 76051



Dear John:



This letter will confirm that the Human Resources Committee of the corporation (“HR
Committee”) has approved the award of performance-based restricted stock to you on the following
terms and conditions:




	1.	 	No award of restricted stock is payable unless Exhibitgroup/Giltspur achieves its maximum
payment target for operating income (“MIP Target”) under the 2008 Management Incentive Plan of
the Corporation (“MIP”).






	2.	 	If the maximum target is achieved, you will receive restricted stock based on the extent to
which specified operating income and strategic goals (including client retention, revenue
growth and retention of actual employees) are achieved. The operating income and strategic
goals, and methods of calculating achievement have been approved by the HR Committee and are
included in the records of the Committee meeting held on March 24, 2008.






	3.	 	The range of possible awards is from zero shares of restricted stock to restricted stock
having a value of $500,000.






	4.	 	The performance period is from January 1, 2008 to December 31, 2008.






	5.	 	Once the extent of achievement has been determined by the HR Committee, payment will be made
in common stock of Viad Corp, payable annually in thirds, with the first payment being made in
February 2009, and the remaining payments being made in January of 2010 and 2011.






	6.	 	The value of Viad Corp common stock for purposes of determining the number of shares earned
will be the average of the high and low price of the shares on the date performance
achievement has been determined by the HR Committee.






	7.	 	The program will be self-funding.






	8.	 	Earned shares, if any, will be subject to the terms of the Performance-Based Restricted Stock
Agreement of the Corporation in effect on the date hereof, including but not limited to the
Restrictive Covenants and Forfeiture and Repayment provisions, except to the extent such terms
are in conflict with this letter. A copy of Performance-Based Restricted Stock Agreement has
been delivered to you.





Please acknowledge your agreement with the terms and conditions of the award by signing below.




Sincerely,




	 	 	 	/s/
Paul B. Dykstra






	 	 	Paul B. Dykstra






	 	 	Acknowledged and Agreed to this






	 	 	6th day of July, 2008.






	 	 	/s/ John F. Jastrem






	 	 	John F. Jastrem
#### UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Ray COLLINS, Jr., Also Known as Devon Small, also known as Ray Davis, Appellant.

No. 00-2736.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted May 17, 2001.

Filed June 22, 2001.

*438Before MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD and BYE, Circuit Judges, and GAITAN,1 District Judge.

1

. The Honorable Fernando *T.*Gaitan, Jr., United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri, sitting by designation.

PER CURIAM.

Following his convictions by a jury for conspiring to distribute and to possess with the intent to distribute cocaine base, *see*21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), § 846, and for aiding and abetting the possession of cocaine base with the intent to distribute it, *see*21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), 18 U.S.C. § 2(a), Ray Collins, Jr., was sentenced to 360 months in prison. Mr. Collins appeals, and we affirm.

The district court, rather than the jury, determined the amount of drugs that Mr. Collins was involved in distributing, and Mr. Collins therefore argues that he was sentenced in violation of *Apprendi v. New Jersey,*530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000). *Apprendi,*530 U.S. at 490, held that any fact, other than a prior conviction, that increases the maximum penalty to which a criminal defendant is exposed must be submitted to and determined by a jury. Because his thirty-year sentence exceeds the twenty-year maximum for the offense *simpliciter, see*21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(C), Mr. Collins maintains that he is entitled to be resentenced.

We have held, however, that if the proof at a defendant’s trial was such that no rational jury, if the matter had been submitted to it, could have failed to find the defendant responsible for the quantity of drugs necessary to subject him to the sentence that he received, then an *Apprendi*error is harmless. *See, e.g., United States v. Anderson,*236 F.3d 427, 429 (2001) *(per curiam).*Our examination of the record convinces us that there is no reasonable likelihood that a properly instructed jury would have found that Mr. Collins was responsible for less than five grams of cocaine base, and thus he would have been subject to a maximum penalty of forty years under 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(B). There was overwhelming evidence at trial that Mr. Collins was involved in a conspiracy that dealt crack cocaine in kilogram quantities.

We therefore affirm the judgment of the district court.
# Fourth Court of Appeals **San Antonio, Texas**
JUDGMENT

N os. 04

- 22

- 00645

- CR, 04

- 22

- 00646

- CR Hayward Charlie THOMAS , Appellant

v.
The STATE of Texas, Appellee
From the 379th Judicial District Court , Bexar County, Texas Trial Court Nos. 2016

- CR

- 7439, 2017

- CR

- 2286 Honorable Ron Rangel , Judge Presiding
BEFORE JUSTICE ALVAREZ , JUSTICE RODRIGUEZ , AND JUSTICE VALENZUELA In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.
SIGNED January 17, 2024.

_____________________________ Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice
Part 2, Section VI: USSGL Crosswalks to Reclassified 

Statements

This section includes crosswalks for use in Fiscal Year 2024 GTAS Reporting. These crosswalks map 

USSGL accounts to external reports in accordance with TFM Volume I, Part 2, Chapter 4700, Federal 

Entity Reporting Requirements for the Financial Report of the United States Government. Each report 

crosswalk lists the proper USSGL accounts and applicable attributes for each line and/or column on the 

reports. Attributes identify information subsidiary to the basic 6-digit USSGL accounts. This subsidiary 

information is necessary to meet external reporting requirements. See Section IV for additional information 

on attributes.

The following are crosswalks from the USSGL Chart of Accounts to standard external reports required by 

Fiscal Service:

Section VI Page Number

USSGL Crosswalk Reclassified Statement of Net Cost (RSNC) VI RSNC - 1

USSGL Crosswalk Reclassified Statement of Operations and 

Changes in Net Position (RSOCNP)

VI RSOCNP - 1

Page 1 of 1
1

From: David Putney [Putney.David@epamail.epa.gov]

Sent: Friday, July 01, 2011 2:28 PM

To: Michael.Palazzolo@alcoa.com; ksands@centuryky.com; kisnerj@noralnm.com; 

jvanmatre@centurywv.com; danny.carroll@riotinto.com; kisnerj@noralnm.com; 

John.Reggi@ormet.com; Henk.VanDerMeyden@alcoa.com; Kathryn.Mitchell@alcoa.com; 

Patricia.Bilskis@alcoa.com; nathan.rufa@alcoa.com; Terry.Blodgett@alcoa.com; 

chris.allen@alcoa.com; david.hulse@alcoa.com

Cc: cjohnson@aluminum.org; Bahner, Mark A.; Green, David A.

Subject: Sulfur content of anode coke

Hello all,

Once again, thank you so much for taking the time to respond to the 

information collection request (ICR) dated April 25, 2011 concerning the 

primary aluminum operations conducted at your facility. That ICR requested 

information on the typical sulfur content of the coke utilized to generate 

anodes in your facilities. While reviewing the ICR responses I noticed 

that (I believe mainly due to the poor wording of the ICR question itself) 

they do not provide all the information I need to properly complete the 

ongoing primary aluminum RTR project with regards to the sulfur content of 

anode coke. Please provide the following information for the anode coke 

utilized in your facility:

 The range of sulfur content in the coke utilized to make anodes used 

 in the reduction cells over the last year of operation. 

 The highest sulfur content in the coke utilized to make anodes used 

 in the reduction cells at any time during the last 10 years. 

 The lowest sulfur content anode coke that you believe you could 

 consistently obtain in sufficient quantities to operate your facility

 at capacity, long term (e.g. over the next 10 years). 

Also, as a reminder, if you have not already responded to my previous 

emails regarding new versus existing pitch storage tanks (email dated 

06/22/11), applicability of the NESHAP standards during periods of 

shutdown and/or malfunction (email dated 05/11/11), or methods used to 

conduct visible emissions monitoring (email dated 05/10/11) then please do 

also provide me responses to those information requests. 

As a reminder - do not email anything you consider confidential business 

information (CBI) to me. If you believe that you would be required to send 

me CBI in order to answer any of the questions listed above then please 

contact me directly so we can discuss the issue. 

Please provide your responses to the above questions to me by 07/15/11 

(two weeks from today). If you would need more time to provide these 

responses then please contact me directly so we can discuss an alternate 

schedule.
2

Thanks again,

David Putney, Environmental Engineer

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards Sector Policies and Programs 

Division

109 T.W. Alexander Drive, RTP, NC 27711

Mail Drop D243-02

Ph: (919) 541-2016 Fax: (919) 541-3207

Email: putney.david@epa.gov
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MARKUS J. THOMAS, et al. : CIVIL ACTION

:

 v. :

:

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : NO. 02-4470

et al. :

O R D E R

AND NOW, this 21st day of August, 2002, upon consideration of Relator's

Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus, IT IS ORDERED that:

1. The District Attorney of Chester County shall file specific and detailed answers

within twenty (20) days from the date of this Order pursuant to Rule 5, 28 U.S.C. fol. § 2254.

2. The Clerk of the Quarter Sessions Court or Office of Judicial Support of

Chester County shall file with the Clerk of this Court copies of ALL RECORDS, INCLUDING

transcripts of Notes of Testimony at Arraignment, Trial, Sentencing, Suppression Hearings, Post

Conviction Hearings, Petitions, Pleadings, Opinions and Briefs of State Court proceedings in the

matter of Commonwealth v. Markus J. Thomas, Court of Common Pleas of Chester County,

Term No. 053-12-01, within twenty (20) days of the date of this order.

BY THE COURT:

 

JACOB P. HART

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Copies faxed to: Copies mailed to:

Case 2:02-cv-04470-JP Document 6 Filed 08/22/2002 Page 1 of 1
Case No. 14,963.

#### UNITED STATES v. DISTILLERY AT SPRING VALLEY.

[8 Ben. 473; 1 22 Int. Rev. Rec. 218.]

District Court, S. D. New York.

June, 1876.

Internal Revenue — Forfeiture — Connivance op Storekeeper.

The connivance of a government storekeeper in charge of a distillery, with the person who runs the distillery, will not have the effect to destroy the forfeiture of the property resulting from the acts of such person under the internal revenue acts of 1864, 1866, 1868, and 1872 (13 Stat. 240; 14 Stat. Ill; 15 Stat. 59, 132, 134; 17 Stat. 240).

A suit was brought by the United States to forfeit this property for alleged violation of the internal revenue acts, and, under the charge of the district court, the jury found a verdict against the government. The judgment was, however, reversed by the circuit court, on writ of error (see [Case No. 14,963]), and the ease came before this court for a second trial, at which the claimant maintained, that, as it now appeared that the frauds upon the revenue, charged to have been committed by the person who was running the distillery, were commited with the connivance of the government storekeeper in charge of the distillery, the forfeiture of the property could not be enforced.

R. M. Sherman, Asst. U. S. Dist. Atty.

Geo. Ticknor Curtis, for claimant.

1

 [Reported by Robert D. Benedict, Esq., and Benj. Lincoln Benedict, Esq., and here reprinted by permission.]

BLATCHFORD, District Judge.

If the decision of the circuit court in this ease [Case No. 14,963] is a correct exposition of the law, I do not see how the connivance and complicity of the government storekeeper in the fraud committed by the person who ran the distillery, can operate to destroy the forfeiture resulting from the acts of such person. The person who carried on the business of a distiller with intent to defraud the United States of the tax on the spirits distilled by him, did not any the less carry on such business with such intent, because he did not commit his fraud secretly, but had for a participant in it the government storekeeper. I think, therefore, there must be a decree for the United States, because I think the decision of the circuit court in this case, above cited, covers, substantially, every question now presented.